In <[email protected]>, on 12/02/2011
at 11:02 AM, S Moonesamy <[email protected]> said:
>In Section 3.1:
> "Original-Envelope-Id: As specified in [ARF]. This field SHOULD
>be
> included exactly once if available to the entity generating the
> report."
>RFC 5965 defines the field as optional and MUST NOT appear more than
>once". The above is a rewording of a requirement level. I suggest
>rewriting the last sentence to remove the key word:
Why? The sense of the text is that it should not be omitted if the
data are available. Thr part about only once is secondary and is
alread implied. How about
"Original-Envelope-Id: As specified in [ARF]. This field SHOULD
be
included if available to the entity generating the report."
INHO it is appropriate to echo the restriction in [ARF], but that's
less important.
>I suggest having a reference to draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-04
Is that legitimate in a Standards Track RFC?
>I suggest removing the "something like".
What is the justification for precluding other types of digital
signatures? Wouldn't it be better to remain agnostic?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
